Storming Of The Capitol Building

[Au165]

(08-27-2021, 12:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm just mentally filing away people who were ok with shooting an unarmed person (which btw includes myself) for the next time they complain that law enforcement shot an unarmed person.

Further explanation for the super dense among us, unarmed is not analogous with not dangerous.

That's a bad faith argument, and I venture to believe you know that. A person being shot "unarmed" participating in an attack on the U.S. capitol is different then being shot while going about their normal every day life. Being shot while "unarmed" while trying to breach a secure area with people in the line of succession to be President is different than being shot while during a traffic stop. 

Unarmed is not analogous with not dangerous correct but that’s not what we are talking about here. Participating in a terroristic event that puts national security at risk kind of trumps a lot of rights and protections. If a person rushes the POTUS there is a relatively common understanding that person will most likely be shot without question because of national security implications. There is a fair argument to be made all those who were at the door could have, and potentially should have, been fired on because of the national security threat they posed at that moment. 

I'm disappointed the Babbitt stuff found it's way here to be honest because she was a terrorist and trying to compare stopping a terrorist during an attack on the country to other events of every day citizens is in bad taste.